Tuesday, August 08, 2017

Don't bother looking for the limits of SJW stupidity or dishonesty. You will not find them. In an astonishingly inept attempt to defend the BBC and "historian" Mary Beard, one English SJW actually put forward the following defense, accompanied by a screenshot.

Dave Tooke‏ @burstdrumI answered your question. Even though it was a straw man. No one ever said mixed race families were typical (majority) of Roman Britain.

Dave Tooke‏ @burstdrumThe BBC cartoon did not say "typical". It merely suggested one such family as possible. Which it was.

This was the screenshot attached to the second tweet.

In fairness, the SJW was undermined by the dishonesty of the BBC, which is the more significant aspect of this little story. You see, this was how the video was described 5 days ago, before BBC "historian" Mary Beard tried to school Paul Joseph Watson and was caught bullshitting by NN Taleb. Emphasis added.

Original BBC Two descriptionLife in Roman Britain is shown through the eyes of a typical family nearly 2000 years ago. The Romans bring towns to Britain, and also roads, forts, and Hadrian’s Wall, to keep out the Picts. The father is supervising the building of Hadrian’s Wall, while the son manages to lose his father’s special military scarf, or focale. This incident is used to explore Roman beliefs and religion, food and entertainment.Current BBC Two descriptionLife in Roman Britain as seen through the eyes of one family nearly 2000 years ago. The Romans bring towns to Britain, and also roads, forts, and Hadrian’s Wall, to keep out the Picts. The father is supervising the building of Hadrian’s Wall, while his son manages to lose his father’s special military scarf, or focale. This incident is used to explore Roman beliefs and religion.

You see, with SJWs, it's Fake News and Fake History all the way down. You can NEVER trust anything they say. Because - all together now - SJWS ALWAYS LIE.

I should have stopped being surprised long ago. VD is right, their mendacity has no limits at all. SJWs are Col.Flagg in the old MASH series: they keep themselves in a state of constant confusion so that they can never divulge useful information when questioned.

They, being good people, have an extremely difficult time getting into the head space necessary to comprehend the depths of deceit in which SJWs (and the Left more generally) find themselves most at home.

Yes, Orwell vastly overestimated the skills and intellect of Big Brother. The original iterations of communism in the old USSR and East Bloc also were inept but didn't have low IQ populations who made a bad situation worse for them. Two generations ago high school students could run a better agitprop operation than CNN does now.

They, being good people, have an extremely difficult time getting into the head space necessary to comprehend the depths of deceit in which SJWs (and the Left more generally) find themselves most at home.

All else follows.

This is true. Normies can't believe that there are many people regularly commit lies of commission on purpose, because normies restrict themselves to lies of ommission, and project this on everyone else.

That's some pretty low effort gaslighting on Tooke's part. He could have at least chosen a different word, say "representative" instead of "typical," then fallen back on bandying semantics when he got caught.

But specifically claiming that the BBC did not use the exact word that they actually used in the description of the cartoon, that he attached to his own tweet? Comically inept.

Someone should write a book about this sort of behavior on the part of crazed leftists, or something.

Just remember, though, this is not "historical revisionism" on Beard's (or Tooke's) part. Because it's perfectly consistent with The Narrative.

"The BBC cartoon did not say "typical". It merely suggested one such family as possible. Which it was."

Again, just understand the vocabulary and mentality of the SJW ideology. "possible. Which it was". It was also possible that the father was a transgendered xer from the future. Hey, ANYTHING is possible. Those that prefer "reality" to the "pixie-dust universe" deal in probability. Not possibility. The probability that this Roman was a negro are astronomical. Intelligent people do not bet on astronomical probabilities. SJW's do. "Oh, I know one intelligent black (who is a mulatto) that made an A on a Jr. High Algebra quiz. Therefore, all blacks should be capable of chairing the physics department at Cambridge!" OK, bad example. Cambridge is in the process of virtue signaling, so their physics department now resembles Google's HR department.

One of the remarkable things about SJWs is how consistent they are in their behavioural patterns across national boundaries and continents of the West, seemingly regardless of race of gender. The white males are often just as bad as the others or even worse because they are somehow trying to make up for their white male privilege or some such original-sin type of psychosis that they carry around with their other pathologies. They just never let you down. It's wall-to-wall pathological dishonesty, persecution complexes and Utopian delusions in a remarkably consistent and reproducible manner. They lie because they think if they lie often enough and with enough conviction to themselves and anybody who is listening, that reality itself will bend to their yearning for their Utopian delusions to be fulfilled. It definitely has a religious dimension to it where they are almost trying to bring on some sort of rapture. It is like they are trying to cast a mass magical spell, and the required conditions for the spell to succeed are that everybody believes the SJW's lies - and then through the forces of the mass magic spell - the lies will become true!

Long quote here basically proving that 20% of study participants (likely WEIRD) are 100% Bavarian phenotype, 40% are normies, and 40% are SJWs.

"""Many psychologists have studied the effects of having “plausible deniability.” In one such study, subjects performed a task and were then given a slip of paper and a verbal confirmation of how much they were to be paid. But when they took the slip to another room to get their money, the cashier misread one digit and handed them too much money. Only 20 percent spoke up and corrected the mistake.

But the story changed when the cashier asked them if the payment was correct. In that case, 60 percent said no and returned the extra money. Being asked directly removes plausible deniability; it would take a direct lie to keep the money. As a result, people are three times more likely to be honest.

You can’t predict who will return the money based on how people rate their own honesty, or how well they are able to give the high-minded answer on a moral dilemma of the sort used by Kohlberg. If the rider [Ed: the conscious, rationalizing mind] were in charge of ethical behavior, then there would be a big correlation between people’s moral reasoning and moral behavior. But he’s not, so there isn’t.

In his book Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely describes a brilliant series of studies in which participants had the opportunity to earn more money by claiming to have solved more math problems than they really did. Ariely summarizes his findings from many variations of the paradigm like this:

“When given the opportunity, many honest people will cheat. In fact, rather than finding that a few bad apples weighted the averages, we discovered that the majority of people cheated, and that they cheated just a little bit.”

People didn’t try to get away with as much as they could. Rather, when Ariely gave them anything like the invisibility of the ring of Gyges, they cheated only up to the point where they themselves could no longer finda justification that would preserve their belief in their own honesty.

The bottom line is that in lab experiments that give people invisibility combined with plausible deniability, most people cheat. The press secretary (also known as the inner lawyer) is so good at finding justifications that most of these cheaters leave the experiment as convinced of their own virtue as they were when they walked in."""

Left-cultists used to be satisfied with interpreting what was known about the past to fit their narrative.

Then they insisted that data inconsistent with the Narrative be ignored.

Retroactively CHANGING data to fit their narrative is relatively new. It's one more signal that their narrative is dying. It's an act of desperation, especially given that catching them in the act is now easier than ever in history.

If it's not desperation, then it's just the incompetence of Diversity in full display.

Again, just understand the vocabulary and mentality of the SJW ideology. "possible. Which it was". It was also possible that the father was a transgendered xer from the future. Hey, ANYTHING is possible.

You are over analysing - look at the screenshot.The SJW is simply contradicting the reality of what it was labelled as.It says "typical" under the video.The SJW says "it was not said to be typical, just possible".Again - it clearly says "typical".The SJW is simply contradicting reality - a common and popular pastime amongst the SJW community.

Scenario: a sub-Saharan gets imported as an exotic for the Coliseum. He survives his thirty bouts and receives the arodius. He is now a freeman, lacking some rights.

His son however would be a Roman citizen with full rights to include Ius migrationis. Although why in hell he would use this right to migrate to cold ass, rainy Britainia is beyond me.

The important thing to remember is this scenario lacks taxpayer paid council houses that are heated by electricity. I think less than 1/2 of blacks could maintain coal heat in a house today or stockpile firewood for winter in UK before electricity/chainsaws.

Battlefrog wrote:I'm still not clear on something. Is the dark skinned guy with the sub-Saharan features (like the cartoon depicts) even possible in Roman Britain? Or is it complete and utter fantasy?It's remotely possible. But extremely unlikely. And not in the least typical. A sub-Saharan in Britannia would probably be a side-show everywhere he went, because literally nobody would ever have seen someone like that before.

SirGroggy wrote:Again, just understand the vocabulary and mentality of the SJW ideology. "possible. Which it was". It was also possible that the father was a transgendered xer from the future. Hey, ANYTHING is possible.

You are over analysing - look at the screenshot.

The SJW is simply contradicting the reality of what it was labelled as.

It says "typical" under the video.

The SJW says "it was not said to be typical, just possible".

Again - it clearly says "typical".

The SJW is simply contradicting reality - a common and popular pastime amongst the SJW community.

I merely didn't include the whole quote since I thought everyone could read. This is what he typed:

"The BBC cartoon did not say "typical". It merely suggested one such family as possible. Which it was."

Yeah, "possible". To an SJW, anything is possible. Except, of course, common sense. And they insist on basing all perception on the outlying possibilities, not on the obvious probabilities. I wonder if SJW's have underdeveloped left brains. It would be interesting if there was a study that tested for this. Anyone know of such a neurological study.

OT News... Looks like Nashville is eager to have it's concert venues get a good dose of London's Multiculturalism... http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2017/08/08/gov-haslam-make-significant-economic-announcement/548097001/

SirGroggy wrote:One of the remarkable things about SJWs is how consistent they are in their behavioural patterns across national boundaries and continents of the West, seemingly regardless of race of gender. ... They just never let you down. It's wall-to-wall pathological dishonesty, persecution complexes and Utopian delusions in a remarkably consistent and reproducible manner.

The Internet is helping them learn from one another. There is a real possibility that they are one of the first truly homogeneous post-national cultures.

It definitely has a religious dimension to it where they are almost trying to bring on some sort of rapture. It is like they are trying to cast a mass magical spell, and the required conditions for the spell to succeed are that everybody believes the SJW's lies - and then through the forces of the mass magic spell - the lies will become true!

Also correct, in the end their movement will probably take on blatantly occult dimensions. All they really need is the conviction that there is a subversive non-human Power out there somewhere willing to help them.

I am sorry to say that since the Scriptures are true, such a Power is all too real. And he has been grooming the SJWs for some time. They are becoming who he wants them to be.

Shame that these guys are so racist they can't just celebrate the true achievements of blacks and such, but have to force them elsewhere. It's almost like they totally lack any self-awareness of what they're actually saying. No way!

@34 dc.sunsets"I'm quite certain there's been more than enough graves of Roman-era British residents to reveal the statistical likelihood of a Sub-Saharan African being "possible."

Find one. Just ONE"

This sort of irrelevant appeal to the social construct of "empirical evidence" is very problematic in the current year. How can we continue to move forward together if you keep bringing up these "facts?" Oy vey.

Both of you are forgetting the definition of what religion is. Religion is not a conveniently-named organization, religion is instead a deeply held belief that underlies and frames your worldview.

So yes, absolutely SJWs are in a religion. There's no "sorta" about it. They just don't have a proper name for it, nor do they likely consciously recognize it as their religion, but they treat it as their religion and that's all that matters.

It's like if there was a cat that came around all the time and you fed it. Eventually you start takin git to the vet, buy it toys, invite it into your home, etc. Even if you don't outright call it your pet, you're treating it as your pet and it doesn't really matter if you make excuses why it's just the "neighborhood cat".

@45 Don't we all think an error is less plausible if we were asked to check the money? You made me think too long about that one.

Here is one: "cognitive dissonance". I read the original use of that term when it came out and now I think most everyone is misusing the phrase, because they never read the original usage, which was about living with outcomes, like buyer's remorse.

I think they are saying NARALT, but we now want you to think ARWLT. It's the 1984 version of NAxALT. At least, I think that's what these insane revisionists are saying. I may not be crazy enough to swim in this insanity pool.

It's a stupid and dishonest sleight of hand. One Centurion in Britannia was an Algerian, therefore African, therefore Black!It's the same with Mary Beard's favourite archaeological finds, the skulls of two Berber women from Roman times. We can tell enough from the skulls to know they were North African, but somehow, it's impossible to know what race they were. They could've been Black, as Mary Beard kept insisting over and over on Twitter, we just can't tell. But we know they were from North Africa!

@50 Cloom GlueHere is one: "cognitive dissonance". I read the original use of that term when it came out

You read Leon Festinger's book in 1957?

and now I think most everyone is misusing the phrase, because they never read the original usage, which was about living with outcomes, like buyer's remorse.

No. That's not what it is about.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values; when performing an action that contradicts one of those beliefs, ideas, or values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts one of the beliefs, ideas, and values.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Cognitive_dissonance

So supporting free speech while working to silence all opposition or dissent would be an example of cognitive dissonance. Google's CEO exhibits it.

@50 Before I go away, I want to mention a very interesting, to me, concept related to "begs the question": "People tell on themselves" and police use that tendency. It was from that video at 3:31. He says, "Liars always assert the offense which is assumed, in the first 30 seconds". "It is the weirdest thing"; ie. they implicate themselves. ... or is that just crack-heads, who do it?

@50 Cloom GlueHere is one: "cognitive dissonance". I read the original use of that term when it came out

You read Leon Festinger's book in 1957?

and now I think most everyone is misusing the phrase, because they never read the original usage, which was about living with outcomes, like buyer's remorse.

No. That's not what it is about.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values; when performing an action that contradicts one of those beliefs, ideas, or values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts one of the beliefs, ideas, and values.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Cognitive_dissonance

So supporting free speech while working to silence all opposition or dissent would be an example of cognitive dissonance. IOW most all SJW's.

@54 No I did not read the original. I must have read a reference to it. For me it was late 1970s. I did not check. It is glued into my memory as buyer's remorse, living with our mistakes or else we hurt.

It's the same with Mary Beard's favourite archaeological finds, the skulls of two Berber women from Roman times.

That reminds me of the series Barbarians by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame. I thought it was mostly pretty good, but it had a couple of obvious nods to political correctness. In one case, they dug up a very elaborate funeral mound somewhere in Gaul and discovered that the deceased was a woman! They then waxed poetic about how this proved that Gallic women could be tribal leaders, could be very wealthy and powerful, etc.

But I thought: how do you know that wasn't all put there by some male tribal chieftan to honor his dearly departed wife or mother? Maybe they had other evidence that they didn't go into on the show, but it just looked like they were jumping to the conclusion that they liked, that the Gauls weren't patriarchal like those nasty Romans.

no, it's really not. Stalin did this all the time back before WW2. westerner intelligence agencies would keep track of published photographs to see which of the Old Guard had been sent to the basement ... they would disappear out of all new releases of Sov photographs of old historical events.

this is also the entire basis of the Mann's Hockey Stick climate graph ... ANY data entered into that algorithm, including entirely random will generate a hockey stick result due to his "correction factors".

Feminists have always lied about how they were "oppressed", etc, etc

14. BBGKB August 08, 2017 12:14 PMOT: Does anyone actually believe 2 white guys with jobs would be finalists on NIGBachelorette if it was a reality show

even niggerettes know better than to marry a Black dude?

anyways, i happened to catch a bit of an NPR story on this about an hour ago. winner is supposed to be Hispanic ... ie - "not White".

Not sure if someone here posted it, or I tripped over it wandering around the web -- but this set of four essays is well worth the read! https://archive.is/VlNfl

The third scientist wrote in his piece:----------So, psychological interchangeability makes diversity meaningless. But psychological differences make equal outcomes impossible. Equality or diversity. You can’t have both.----------Makes me want to stand up and cheer!

Aside from the fact that SJWs are just really stupid, you also have to keep in mind the degree to which they hate life, usually because of their personal circumstances. This hatred of life causes them to hate most of history, except for the moments of rebellion against power, and so they have no conscience at all about lying about it.

The smarter ones (relatively speaking) know that they're lying, and justify that by their belief that they are trying to create a better world for the future, unlike the mean evil racist patriarchal hierarchy of Western civilization. Meanwhile, the stupider ones don't even know that they're lying, because they don't have a sufficient concept of truth in the first place. They just parrot the talking the points while acting out based on muh feels.

Here is one: "cognitive dissonance". I read the original use of that term when it came out

You read Leon Festinger's book in 1957?

and now I think most everyone is misusing the phrase, because they never read the original usage, which was about living with outcomes, like buyer's remorse.

No. That's not what it is about.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values; when performing an action that contradicts one of those beliefs, ideas, or values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts one of the beliefs, ideas, and values.

So supporting free speech while working to silence all opposition or dissent would be an example of cognitive dissonance. IOW most all SJW's.-------------------------

It just occurred to me that you are completely missing the point about cognitive dissonance and I can highlight how everyone is misusing the term and I was right about that, after all.

Take a look at post #63. They are changing the data to reduce their cognitive dissonance.

The cognitive dissonance theory presupposes that a person wants to seek psychological consistency. That means reducing dissonance is the other half of the theory that everyone omits.

So your example has to explain the reduction of the cognitive dissonance by the SJWs when they support free speech and work to silence the opposition.

You can't just present the cognitive dissonance without explaining how SJWs reduced the cognitive dissonance.

I leave it up to you to explain how SJWs do the reduction of dissonance, like @63 data changing, is the reduction of dissonance for global warning proponents.

@58 "And African sucks because da wyte man is in fact keeping them down...?"You know, there actually is a bunch of them that INSISTS that they built the pyramids and all that high culture stuff -- "and da huwhite man dun stole it" -- but no one ever seems to ask them:

"well, if you KNEW how to build such things -- why didn't you BUILD THEM AGAIN!?"

@66. Cloom Glue August 08, 2017 8:11 PM" So your example has to explain the reduction of the cognitive dissonance by the SJWs when they support free speech and work to silence the opposition. "

Trivial. By getting Damore fired, harmony is achieved. Nobody speaks up. The SJW can now claim that there is the right to free speech. Because nobody dares to use it.

It is not about logical consistency. It is all about what happens. When everyone is silenced, perfect harmony is achieved.

That's why they screech in swarms when one dissenter speaks; until he is driven out. And that's why constant trolling is effective: It wears them out and drives them to collapse in a war of attrition for which they are not prepared.

@66I leave it up to you to explain how SJWs do the reduction of dissonance,

Easy. "Free speech" is an abstract good, because muh John Stuart Mill and mu Free Speech Movement, etc. Contrary opinions especially crimethink like the internal Google memo cause badfeelz, and badfeelz must be made to go away by any means necessary.

So lip service to Free Speech is required for now, and witch hunts to silence dissent is required forever. As a bonus, once all the witches are burned then "consensus" is achieved.

They believe two or more disparate things at once that clash, they are perpetually in search of goodfeelz, and they are herd animals that run on rhetoric not dialectic. So the constant tension of cog-diss is normal to them. They've never known anything else.

@68-Herbert Marcuse, the Dark Prince of the New Left--and a man who should've known better--I think coined the term "repressive tolerance," which was simply selective intolerance. He was being deliberately oxymoronic, and that sort of thing doesn't embarrass them at all.

I like all those examples because the point of the Cognitive Dissonance experiments was not to measure the stress. They were measuring the stress reduction by reactions people do, and think, to achieve internal consistency. Read the experiments.

You are making my point that the meaning of the experiment called "cognitive dissonance" was lost.

The only part that is wrong is, @69, this is not my definition and no, they are not in constant stress, if we are using the "cognitive dissonance" hypothesis, which is: the stress is reduced to maintain internal consistency.

You could argue that the experiment is slightly mislabeled or the phrase is not referencing the original experiments and I should not think of the experiments when people use the phrase.

Furthermore, the experiment was not measuring psychopathy and it also occurred to me that SJWs could be psychopaths or more precisely diabolical narcissists, instead of the "cognitive dissonance" explanation. That is why I said from the beginning (@50), often the phrase is misused. It is not about how people maintain stressful cognition.

@78-To be fair, "beg the question" comes from a poor translation of the Latin phrase "petitio principii," which means more like "postulation of the beginning" or "assume the first point." So it's corrupted from the get-go.